[ High School and Self-Education Board ]
Posted by Tina in Ouray, CO on 11:24 May 10
In Reply to: Convince me I need to teach logic. posted by Luann in ID (feeling rather sheepish about even asking this)
Luann,
I don't think you should feel sheepish at all about asking this question on a classical board! In fact, I think it's one of the most important questions that a classical educator could possibly ask. Yet most of us couldn't give a good answer. We teach logic because someone told us it's what we should be teaching. We really haven't a clue why they tell us to do this, and when we're done we conveniently check the logic box off of the list of things we're supposed to do and move on. If this is all formal logic is good for, I think you might as well skip it.
I teach formal logic. I've taught formal logic for years now. I love teaching logic. I love teaching others to teach logic. But it wasn't always this way. I stuck my oldest son in a logic class someone else was teaching, and smugly checked off logic from my list of things-to-do. I hadn't a clue. It wasn't until I developed a real interest in classical rhetoric that I realized what logic was all about. And because I saw that there was no way to teach classical rhetoric without a firm foundation and mastery of formal logic, I began a personal crusade to help others learn and teach logic.
Before you go on to teach formal logic again, I suggest that you really nail down the answer to this question. Reasoning is one of those things that we do anyway, whether we have systematically studied formal logic or not. I think that is why we often tend to second guess ourselves and wonder what the point of making a big deal over a logic course is. (The same goes for our native language; we all can speak English, so why do we study English as part of an academic curriculum?) But the biggest reason for questioning why we do what we're told to do is that we classical educators rarely get beyond the first baby steps of the basics. If you aren't committed to taking a study of logic further, if you aren't committed to helping your children apply what they learn in a logic class in all of their reasoning and reading and writing, then there really isn't much point. It's like teaching a child to walk and then making them sit down and give up walking. Why bother? Admittedly there are a few students who get naturally intoxicated by a study of formal logic and pour themselves into applying it; they are going to walk, and then run, whether we spur them on or not. In my experience most of us, however, are lazier than that -- intentionally or unintentionally. It takes effort, sometimes a great deal of effort, to see the point ourselves and then to help our students see it, too.
On an upclose-and-on-the-homefront scale, I explained learning logic to one of my mid-highschool students on Sunday morning in the following way. We were discussing the idea of life after death. Specifically we were asking how one might refute arguments in objection to the idea that there is life after death. How does one approach refuting an argument anyway? Well, there are essentially three ways. These three ways correspond to the three ways that our intellect works and to the structure of thought itself. And it is these three things -- the three acts of the mind -- that traditional, formal, Aristotelian logic studies. First, there is the part of reasoning that includes apprehending or understanding or grasping concepts. Second, there is the part of reasoning that makes judgments, that says something about something else by relating two concepts to each other. Third, there is the part of reasoning that moves from premises (or judgments) to conclusions, that presents reasons or evidence for further claims. That's what logic is all about in a nutshell. So when we look at an argument we need to look at the terms of the argument. What is it that we are talking about? Are the terms clear or ambiguous? We also need to look at the propositions or statements that are made, the premises. We need to ask whether they are true or false? And finally, we need to be able to determine why something is so. Is the form of the argument valid or invalid? All three of these things taken together form the basis of sound reasoning.
If you don't have a sound reason for studying logic, you do well to question why you ought to bother with it. Below I've included some reasons that I previously put together for studying logic. They're formulated rather . . . well, formally. But I'd welcome discussion about any of them, or others, that folks might like to talk about.
Tina in Ouray, CO
P.S. We live right across the street from the old livery barn in Ouray. Bet you remember that if you grew up in the area!)
Why Study Logic?
The Necessity of Logic: To avoid fallacious reasoning and to reason rightly. Logic is "undeniable, unavoidable, self-evident, or self explanatory. One cannot 'not' use it." The only question is whether we reason rightly.
The Nature of Logic: To understand the epistemological nature of language and thinking; to learn to define terms, to make distinctions, to rightly judge, and to validly deduce truth; to encourage systematic, disciplined, orderly, and precise thinking.
A Tool of Learning: To understand the logical aspects of language and develop analytical skills foundational to all other disciplines, linking the formal character of reasoning to 'all' our studies.
True Knowledge: To analyze and justify our beliefs and opinions and acquire true knowledge; to proportion the degree of our beliefs in accord with the grounds we have for their acceptance.
Our Reasonable Service: To learn to love God, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, to reason together with Him, to plead our cause before His throne, to prove what is good, and to rightly divide the word of truth.
Apologetics: To develop confidence in the inherent reasonableness of our faith that we might contend earnestly and honestly for it, countering destructive ideologies, "destroy[ing] speculations . . . raised up against the knowledge of God," and offering a well-reasoned defense for the hope that is in us.
Evangelism: To replace truth and reasonableness at the center of the gospel rather than felt need and fulfillment; to develop the intellectual categories necessary to forge connections between Christianity and culture.
Worship and Fellowship: To restore reason to its rightful role of informing our Christian walk and worship and enriching our friendships and fellowship.
Intellectual Virtue: To cultivate intellectual virtue, to nurture an ordered soul, to foster an honesty that squarely faces difficult questions, and to form a habit of wanting the truth.
Intellectual Tradition: To enter the Great Conversation and "come to terms" with those authors educated within the classical tradition, to connect with their way of thinking and understand the ideas it spawned. And, following in the footsteps of that same tradition, to lay a foundation for the study of classical rhetoric, the capstone of the liberal arts.